Overwhelming evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

Intelligent design is the polar opposite of a powerful theory: its explanation ratio is pathetic. The numerator is the same as Darwin’s: everything we know about life and its prodigious complexity. But the denominator, far from Darwin’s pristine and minimalist simplicity, is at least as big as the numerator itself: an unexplained intelligence big enough to be capable of designing all the complexity we are trying to explain in the first place!

guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.dawkins1

This objection is a typical example of a materialist’s inability to grasp the nature of intelligence. According to his argument his own intelligence must be “smaller” than the things he understands. His mathematical ratio is based on a crude interpretation of reality in terms of sizes and quantities. He seems oblivious of the meaning of the word “comprehend” - which is to “completely” (com-) “grasp” (prehendere). The universe is incredibly immense yet we can grasp the fact of its existence without having to be “bigger” than the universe.

The human brain is probably the most complex structure that exists but the degree of complexity of one brain doesn’t guarantee it is more intelligent than another less complex. In fact the brain** has** no intelligence! It is a physical mechanism which doesn’t know what it is doing. The sum total of its activity is to transmit electrical impulses - like a computer - totally unaware of their significance. A mindless brain lacks insight.

Dawkins seems unaware that the mind-body problem has baffled philosophers - and more recently neuroscientists - for thousands of years. One thing is certain. We don’t associate intelligence with inanimate objects. How could they possibly produce insight? No one has ever answered this question. To believe there is an answer is to make an enormous act of faith because there is not one jot of evidence in its favour.

The most one can say is that our experience of intelligence is restricted to brains. Apparently no one has had experience of disembodied intelligence - although we can’t even be sure it is embodied. “related to the body” is a more accurate description. Until it is established scientifically that the mind is derived from matter it remains an unsatisfactory theory. If the universe is not designed there is no guarantee that intelligence even exists! It could well be a fantasy produced by mindless objects, simply an impressive word signifying nothing.

If Dawkins wants “pristine and minimalist simplicity” he can’t ask for more than that! His only problem is that he would be getting far more than he bargained for… Or should I say far less?

 

[Jason_Firestone]

So, pardon my temporary reappearance, (they didn’t remove me, even though I asked, for whatever reason ??) but I thought it would be instructive, to actually look at the notion of relying on the nonsense of ID to lead one to a false security in a false notion. (This IS the Philosophy section, however if one is going to deny Truth, and attempt to exclude valid evidence against one’s position, simply by putting one’s fingers in ones ears, and going “lalalalalalala”, one can be certain, one will never arrive at the Truth. )

So…lets look at the nonsense, of the idea that the improbability of a series of processes of assembly of DNA would be SO high, that it could not have happened, or would not have happened.

((BTW, a perfectly reasonable proposal of how that could have, or may have happened, is in Nobel Laureate, Dr. Jack Szostak’s, (MD, PhD, Harvard professor), series of videos, on YouTube.))

You need to go to the game store at the mall, and purchase 34 die, or 17 pairs of dice. Drive carefully. Stop at church, if you have time.
Anyway, when you get home, sit at a large desk, with a large drinking glass, or container.
Put the dice in the cup, and shake them up.
Toss them out onto the desk.
You will see 34 dice, each with it’s face up, whatever happened to come up.

The probability of an observed outcome of 1 throw of 1 dice is 1/6.
(Actually this ignores the astronomically higher added multiplicative functions of 3 dimensional positions, but we’ll forget that for now).

The probability of the outcome of an observation of 2 dice is 1/ 6 x 6, or 1/36.

With 17pairs of dice : ((which could very easily be raised to thousands, (physically), or millions, or billions, or whatever, in a super-computer simulation)) :

1. The probability of any 1 outcome, of 1 dice throw, of the 17 pairs, coming up as seen on the desk is :

1 / 286^24, or 1/286 septillion.
actually : 1/286,511,799,958,070,380,000,000,000.

So, randomly, without any Divine intervention, or any intervention AT ALL, we could witness an event, on the desk, which had a probability of 1/286 septillion. Septillion is about 1,000 times the number of stars in the universe, (which is 300 sextillion ), and can witness an event of that improbability as often as we wish to, or can, toss the dice.

1. The number of times an event of this high an improbability will happen, if the 17 pairs of dice are thrown, 3 times per minute, for 13.7 billion years, (the present age of the universe), is : 64 quintillion.
   actually : 64,806,479,999,999,992, or about 5,000,000 times per year.

An astronomically higher number would result, if a (very) large number of “tossing machines” were constructed, thus a “non-designed” result from the tosses would be astronomically higher, depending on how many machines could be constructed. (Note :The result of the toss, is not dependent on the machine, or the design of the machine).

Multiply that by many orders of more dice, x the positions on the desk.
Thus we have an astronomically higher frequency x astronomically higher improbability due to more dice, x astronomically higher order due to increasingly better determination of position on the desk.

So, as we see, events of unbelievably, astronomically high orders of magnitude of improbability, are not only possible, but utterly beyond any notion of “commonplace”, and require no intervention, whatsoever.

Faith is a gift of Almighty God, just as St. Paul said. Intelligent Design is a fallacy.
God bless.

 

[tonyrey]

So, pardon my temporary reappearance, (they didn’t remove me, even though I asked, for whatever reason ??) but I thought it would be instructive, to actually look at the notion of relying on the nonsense of ID to lead one to a false security in a false notion. (This IS the Philosophy section, however if one is going to deny Truth, and attempt to exclude valid evidence against one’s position, simply by putting one’s fingers in ones ears, and going “lalalalalalala”, one can be certain, one will never arrive at the Truth. )

“The nonsense of ID” is an unsubstantiated, dogmatic assertion which is completely out of a place in what is supposed to be an objective, philosophical discussion. The remark about one’s fingers in one**’**s ears applies perfectly to its author.

So…lets look at the nonsense, of the idea that the improbability of a series of processes of assembly of DNA would be SO high, that it could not have happened, or would not have happened.

“the nonsense” is yet another example of the fallacy of petitio principii.

((BTW, a perfectly reasonable proposal of how that could have, or may have happened, is in Nobel Laureate, Dr. Jack Szostak’s, (MD, PhD, Harvard professor), series of videos, on YouTube.))

The appeal to authority cuts no ice with a reasonable person. The ascription of** everything **to chance plays right into the hands of atheist propagandists…

You need to go to the game store at the mall, and purchase 34 die, or 17 pairs of dice. Drive carefully. Stop at church, if you have time.
Anyway, when you get home, sit at a large desk, with a large drinking glass, or container.

This condescending tone ill befits a person who purports to be a Christian. It also infringes the forum rule of courtesy.

Put the dice in the cup, and shake them up.
Toss them out onto the desk.
You will see 34 dice, each with it’s face up, whatever happened to come up.

The probability of an observed outcome of 1 throw of 1 dice is 1/6.
(Actually this ignores the astronomically higher added multiplicative functions of 3 dimensional positions, but we’ll forget that for now).

The probability of the outcome of an observation of 2 dice is 1/ 6 x 6, or 1/36.

With 17pairs of dice : ((which could very easily be raised to thousands, (physically), or millions, or billions, or whatever, in a super-computer simulation)) :

1. The probability of any 1 outcome, of 1 dice throw, of the 17 pairs, coming up as seen on the desk is :

1 / 286^24, or 1/286 septillion.
actually : 1/286,511,799,958,070,380,000,000,000.

So, randomly, without any Divine intervention, or any intervention AT ALL, we could witness an event, on the desk, which had a probability of 1/286 septillion. Septillion is about 1,000 times the number of stars in the universe, (which is 300 sextillion ), and can witness an event of that improbability as often as we wish to, or can, toss the dice.

1. The number of times an event of this high an improbability will happen, if the 17 pairs of dice are thrown, 3 times per minute, for 13.7 billion years, (the present age of the universe), is : 64 quintillion.
   actually : 64,806,479,999,999,992, or about 5,000,000 times per year.

An astronomically higher number would result, if a (very) large number of “tossing machines” were constructed, thus a “non-designed” result from the tosses would be astronomically higher, depending on how many machines could be constructed. (Note :The result of the toss, is not dependent on the machine, or the design of the machine).

Multiply that by many orders of more dice, x the positions on the desk.
Thus we have an astronomically higher frequency x astronomically higher improbability due to more dice, x astronomically higher order due to increasingly better determination of position on the desk.

So, as we see, events of unbelievably, astronomically high orders of magnitude of improbability, are not only possible, but utterly beyond any notion of “commonplace”, and require no intervention, whatsoever.

According to that argument one is justified in believing anything whatsoever, no matter how absurd. No doubt everything may be derived from nothing! The blind Goddess is the supreme power…

Faith is a gift of Almighty God, just as St. Paul said.

It does not entail “Credo quia absurdum”. I wonder why Jesus bothered to refer to the beauty of the lilies if reasoning is redundant…

Intelligent Design is a fallacy.

Constant repetition of an unsubstantiated assertion convinces no one and is a sign of insecurity. Sound reasoning does not need to be bolstered by unnecessary mantra.

 

[tonyrey]

There may four hypotheses be framed concerning the first causes of the universe: that they are endowed with perfect goodness; that they have perfect malice; that they are opposite, and have both goodness and malice; that they have neither goodness nor malice. Mixed phenomena can never prove the two former unmixed principles; and the uniformity and steadiness of general laws seem to oppose the third. The fourth, therefore, seems by far the most probable.

• David Hume *Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

*The obvious flaw in Hume’s reasoning is his failure to consider free will. “the uniformity and steadiness of general laws” gives the game away! He assumes every single event is determined and nothing is exempt from physical necessity. The universe becomes a closed system in which everything has a physical cause - as if it is a mere cog in a vast machine. Yet he uses the words “seem” and “seems”, thereby avoiding the dogmatism of lesser philosophers.

Even so he seems to overlook the implications of “the uniformity and steadiness of general laws” for his own mental activity. If thought is “a little agitation of the brain” - as he claims - and "a secretion of the brain” according to Darwin - he has no control over his conclusions. No matter how irrational they are they are predictable and immutable! They are like instincts which are notoriously fallible.

All attacks on the concept of Design are self-destructive because they imply that reasoning has a purposeless origin. If the universe is not created for any reason nothing is reasonable. Purposeful activity cannot pop up by magic like a jack in a box somewhere along the line of events because it is the product of rational activity. To reject reason as a primary, fundamental reality is to destroy the very foundation of all our knowledge and understanding. “agitations” and “secretions” are hardly reliable guides to the truth!

 

[buffalo]

So, pardon my temporary reappearance, (they didn’t remove me, even though I asked, for whatever reason ??) but I thought it would be instructive, to actually look at the notion of relying on the nonsense of ID to lead one to a false security in a false notion. (This IS the Philosophy section, however if one is going to deny Truth, and attempt to exclude valid evidence against one’s position, simply by putting one’s fingers in ones ears, and going “lalalalalalala”, one can be certain, one will never arrive at the Truth. )

So…lets look at the nonsense, of the idea that the improbability of a series of processes of assembly of DNA would be SO high, that it could not have happened, or would not have happened.

((BTW, a perfectly reasonable proposal of how that could have, or may have happened, is in Nobel Laureate, Dr. Jack Szostak’s, (MD, PhD, Harvard professor), series of videos, on YouTube.))

You need to go to the game store at the mall, and purchase 34 die, or 17 pairs of dice. Drive carefully. Stop at church, if you have time.
Anyway, when you get home, sit at a large desk, with a large drinking glass, or container.
Put the dice in the cup, and shake them up.
Toss them out onto the desk.
You will see 34 dice, each with it’s face up, whatever happened to come up.

The probability of an observed outcome of 1 throw of 1 dice is 1/6.
(Actually this ignores the astronomically higher added multiplicative functions of 3 dimensional positions, but we’ll forget that for now).

The probability of the outcome of an observation of 2 dice is 1/ 6 x 6, or 1/36.

With 17pairs of dice : ((which could very easily be raised to thousands, (physically), or millions, or billions, or whatever, in a super-computer simulation)) :

1. The probability of any 1 outcome, of 1 dice throw, of the 17 pairs, coming up as seen on the desk is :

1 / 286^24, or 1/286 septillion.
actually : 1/286,511,799,958,070,380,000,000,000.

So, randomly, without any Divine intervention, or any intervention AT ALL, we could witness an event, on the desk, which had a probability of 1/286 septillion. Septillion is about 1,000 times the number of stars in the universe, (which is 300 sextillion ), and can witness an event of that improbability as often as we wish to, or can, toss the dice.

1. The number of times an event of this high an improbability will happen, if the 17 pairs of dice are thrown, 3 times per minute, for 13.7 billion years, (the present age of the universe), is : 64 quintillion.
   actually : 64,806,479,999,999,992, or about 5,000,000 times per year.

An astronomically higher number would result, if a (very) large number of “tossing machines” were constructed, thus a “non-designed” result from the tosses would be astronomically higher, depending on how many machines could be constructed. (Note :The result of the toss, is not dependent on the machine, or the design of the machine).

Multiply that by many orders of more dice, x the positions on the desk.
Thus we have an astronomically higher frequency x astronomically higher improbability due to more dice, x astronomically higher order due to increasingly better determination of position on the desk.

So, as we see, events of unbelievably, astronomically high orders of magnitude of improbability, are not only possible, but utterly beyond any notion of “commonplace”, and require no intervention, whatsoever.

Faith is a gift of Almighty God, just as St. Paul said. Intelligent Design is a fallacy.
God bless.

The search landscape is limited by your design.

 

[prodigalson2011]

You need to go to the game store at the mall, and purchase 34 die, or 17 pairs of dice…
…

…So, as we see, events of unbelievably, astronomically high orders of magnitude of improbability, are not only possible, but utterly beyond any notion of “commonplace”, and require no intervention, whatsoever.

Faith is a gift of Almighty God, just as St. Paul said. Intelligent Design is a fallacy.
God bless.

Unless I’m misreading, this entire exercise of yours only states the obvious. That 1 out of the 286 septillion possible occurences (each being equally improbable) is going to occur with each throw is a matter of obvious necessity. But when you specify a very narrow range of outcomes on several different and crucial levels (the creation of DNA does not require merely “one lucky strike”) is where the statistical probabilities begin to weigh heavily in favor of its unlikelihood:

As Dembski explains, there are only approximately 10^150 single-particle events available in the history of the universe. There are several ways one can approach computing the probability of accidental evolution, but the standard probability expectation for them all far exceeds the available 10^150 particle events. The improbability of achieving the human genome directly by an accidental process without any help of built-in design features is 1 chance in 43,000,000,000 (4 nucleotide options for each position on the DNA strand with 3 billion positions multiplied exponentially per standard probability theory). But since life is a three-part system comprised of the genotype (DNA code), ribotype (translation system), and phenotype (bodily structure and functional systems), this number must be exponentially increased by the improbability of accidentally achieving the translation system in order to produce the structure and systems of the organisms from the genome. The improbability of creating life by accident is, then, on the order of 43,000,000,000 multiplied by ribotype improbability, which is itself another immense number. The enormous complexity of both the genome and ribotype make the improbability values for the accidental evolution of the entire tree of life a staggeringly enormous figure well outside the resources our universe has had to apply to the problem. Since the number of “rolls of the dice,” available, that is, the number of physical events available in the history of the universe, again 10^150, is the merest fraction of the number required for accidental evolution to have any calculable probability, the probability of achieving evolution of human life by accident cannot reach the threshold of scientific credibility. It is, in fact, effectively 0.

To make the accidental achievement of an event scenario more probable than not under standard probability theory a number of random “attempts” must have been completed equal to at least half the total improbability value. In the case of our probability estimate of the human genome give in the preceding paragraph, that would require a number of accidental attempts equal to or greater than half roughly 44,500,000,000. Half of this number is still untold trillions of times greater than what the available resources could support at the known value of 10^150.

Alternatively one can approach computing the improbability of accidental evolution by analyzing the structural complexity and physical options available at each point in the construction of the first proteins, cells, and higher organisms as I have done in rudimentary fashion in Part 1, and summarized in Table 1. One can also compute the ordered biomass produced throughout the history of the universe and compare it to the available particle resources in terms of overall physical mass, employing reasonable assumptions for the astronomically poor efficiency rate of an accidental process, as I do in Appendix 2. The result is the same no matter how the problem is approached: there are not enough physical and time resources available for accident to have gotten the job of evolution done within scientific standards of probability.

Based upon standard probability theory the accidental evolution of life is not a reasonable expectation, and therefore not a good scientific theory. Yes, Mother Nature could have gotten extremely lucky, but we are not entitled to affirm the extremely improbable with science. Science must always affirm the more probable over the less probable. Therefore, although one cannot definitively say that accidental evolution is completely impossible, we can say that it is so far outside the threshold of probability needed for scientific credibility as to be laughable. Since accidental evolution is not good science, it should not be taught as a leading contender, a default theory, or a flagship of evolutionary science, as is currently the case in most classrooms today. (copyright 2005 Rick Harrison)

 

[Bradski]

But when you specify a very narrow range of outcomes on several different and crucial levels (the creation of DNA does not require merely “one lucky strike”) is where the statistical probabilities begin to weigh heavily in favor of its unlikelihood:

Behe is asking what are the chances of a one shot success in obtaining a complex structure. Just like dealing 4 aces straight from a shuffled deck is highly unlikely. But, and this is a huge but, the odds aren’t to be calculated in that way.

Take one guy shuffling a pack of cards and dealing 4 of them. He does this every minute. The chances of those cards being the 4 aces are 52x51x50x49 which is 1:6,497,400. That is, according to the law of averages, he’s only going to do it once every 6,497,400 times. Let’s round up to 6.5 million. And let’s say that he hits the 4 aces half way through his sequence. It will have taken him 3.25 million minutes or approximately 6.2 years.

Another guy deals out one card at a time. He’s got a 1:52 chance, so let’s say he does it half way through his sequence which is 26 minutes. He then has one ace. He continues shuffling and dealing one card at a time until he has two aces. Another 26 minutes. By the time he has 4 he has been dealing for a lot less than 2 hours. The other guy will still be there until 2018.

The tornado in the junkyard won’t produce a 747 because the odds are just too vast, but we’re not looking for a one-hit wonder. It’s a cumulative process. To end up with 4 aces, you don’t need to do it in one hit. And at each stage, there’s a cumulative value. If you have two aces, you don’t have ‘two aces high’. You have a pair. If you have three aces, you don’t have ‘a pair of aces and an ace high’ you have three of a kind. And so on.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Behe is asking what are the chances of a one shot success in obtaining a complex structure. Just like dealing 4 aces straight from a shuffled deck is highly unlikely. But, and this is a huge but, the odds aren’t to be calculated in that way.

…
The tornado in the junkyard won’t produce a 747 because the odds are just too vast, but we’re not looking for a one-hit wonder. It’s a cumulative process. To end up with 4 aces, you don’t need to do it in one hit. And at each stage, there’s a cumulative value. If you have two aces, you don’t have ‘two aces high’. You have a pair. If you have three aces, you don’t have ‘a pair of aces and an ace high’ you have three of a kind. And so on.

One problem with this is assuming that each stage in the building of the structure will in fact survive as is until the next stage is added. The “lifespan” of each stage would depend on countless environmental variables together with its inherent (in)stability that could quickly reset the accumulated structure, so it may not have been the cumulative process you conceive. How stable was each stage, in fact?

 

[Bradski]

One problem with this is assuming that each stage in the building of the structure will in fact survive as is until the next stage is added. The “lifespan” of each stage would depend on countless environmental variables together with its inherent (in)stability that could quickly reset the accumulated structure, so it may not have been the cumulative process you conceive. How stable was each stage, in fact?

That cumulative process is the basis for everything we have right now. For example, complex elements didn’t spring into existence fully formed. They evolved from simpler elements: quarks to protons and neutrons to hydrogen and helium, then heavier elements. Likewise with complex molecules from simpler ones. Likewise multicellular organisms from single cellular. Likewise complex eyes from simple ones.

You can have a few billion single celled bacteria in a gram of soil. Imagine the number of the basic building blocks of life there’d be. Now times that by a planet and have that countless number of basic elements interacting constantly for millions upon millions of years.

How long might it take just to get four compatible elements to link in some beneficial way (like the 4 aces) when there are billions of dealers dealing billions of hands countless times per second over thousands of years? Behe tries to convince anyone who will listen that it’s impossible. The way he describes it, it is. But looking at the process as it actually works, it would be something of a miracle if you didn’t get something out of the mix.

And once you’ve got something – anything at all that can survive, the process becomes exponential. And all you needed to start was warm soup and a few million years.

 

[prodigalson2011]

That cumulative process is the basis for everything we have right now. For example, complex elements didn’t spring into existence fully formed. They evolved from simpler elements: quarks to protons and neutrons to hydrogen and helium, then heavier elements. Likewise with complex molecules from simpler ones. Likewise multicellular organisms from single cellular. Likewise complex eyes from simple ones.

You can have a few billion single celled bacteria in a gram of soil. Imagine the number of the basic building blocks of life there’d be. Now times that by a planet and have that countless number of basic elements interacting constantly for millions upon millions of years.

How long might it take just to get four compatible elements to link in some beneficial way (like the 4 aces) when there are billions of dealers dealing billions of hands countless times per second over thousands of years? Behe tries to convince anyone who will listen that it’s impossible. The way he describes it, it is. But looking at the process as it actually works, it would be something of a miracle if you didn’t get something out of the mix.

And once you’ve got something – anything at all that can survive, the process becomes exponential. And all you needed to start was warm soup and a few million years.

This still makes the same assumption that PeterPlato pointed out. Until it becomes alive (capable of reproduction), the occurence of each “ace” will be be isolated and each would need to survive long enough to accrue all other necessary “aces.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

That cumulative process is the basis for everything we have right now. For example, complex elements didn’t spring into existence fully formed. They evolved from simpler elements: quarks to protons and neutrons to hydrogen and helium, then heavier elements. Likewise with complex molecules from simpler ones. Likewise multicellular organisms from single cellular. Likewise complex eyes from simple ones.
…

And once you’ve got something – anything at all that can survive, the process becomes exponential. And all you needed to start was warm soup and a few million years.

However, all this assumes what you are trying to prove - that it all occurred and carried on as a result of a series of freakishly improbable chance events that continued on without any supernatural intervention. You can’t assume your version of the process in trying to prove your version of the process!

 

[Jason_Firestone]

Tonrey,
Relax pops, The game store was a joke, and I see your paranoia is still showing.

As for : Dembski, he makes the fundamental error that all creationists make. Evolution is not “accident”. That fundamental error is in all anti-evolutionist nonsense.

I just proved that I could come up with a FAR greater number of events, than he has. 10^150 is not even a googleplex. With even a few hundred people throwing the dice, the number would be 100^200. So however he cooked that number up, it’s 100% wrong. He’s no mathematician. He’s a theologian.

Actually there is an error, in my post, but since you are all so ignorant of real science, I thought I’d see if anyone got it. The example of tossing for 13.7 billion years is wrong. It should have been 4 billion years, (cooled earth with oceans). Oh well, it just proves you guys are mental masturbating over here, and have not a clue what you’re talking about.

Every Genetecist and most Biologists knows The Theory of Evolution does not involve “accident” or “chance”. There is no such thing. It’s "probabilities’’, which are computable. Maybe if he stops conflating chance with probability, as every scientist would know, someone might pay attention.

I didn’t “appeal” to Szostak’ authority. I said watch the video. You might just learn something. Of course, if you’re going to go “lalalalalala”, that’s never going to happen.

And BTW, you know what you can do with you patronizing “petitio principii.”. You don’t intimidate me pops. It’s 2012. We speak English now. You are a world class expert at deflection though, I must say.

Also I did read the Feser book, and his other cronies. Maybe if he tried to get a job at a decent school someone would pay attention. he assumes bad-faith, and is so utterly condescending, he makes one want to vomit. I’m working on a refutation. Look on line. He’s a piece of cake to refute. Talk about circular.
Well, Tata folks.

 

[Bradski]

However, all this assumes what you are trying to prove - that it all occurred and carried on as a result of a series of freakishly improbable chance events that continued on without any supernatural intervention. You can’t assume your version of the process in trying to prove your version of the process!

I’m trying to indicate that what we think is freakishly improbable isn’t necessarily so. And it’s true that I can’t just assume simple to complex to prove that is the process I’m trying to justify.

But…all the examples I gave above are just that. Complexity from simplicity. These are not assumptions but proven facts. Even down to the molecular level. Just wind the clock back and you can see where we came from.

 

[Jason_Firestone]

You mean THIS Dembski ? Hahahahahahaha

The guy who believes in the “Bible Code” ? You guys are funny.

BTW, a Third Grader could refute this :
It took 5 seconds to see the error. (doing facepalm)

10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.

He stupidly assumes each particle only interacts once. If he had a brain, he would have realized that term should be astronomically higher.

From Wiki :
“In November, 2007, a graduate student named S. A. Smith brought an apparent case of wholesale academic misuse of unlicenced content to public attention. She noticed that a video used by Dembski in his lecture was identical to The Inner Life of the Cell animation created by Harvard University and a company called XVIVO. The audio track giving a scientific explanation was stripped off and the video was used with an alternative narration. The matter was brought to the attention of Harvard and XVIVO. David Bolinsky, creator of the video, wrote that Dembski was warned about using the video without permission.”

In response to the allegations, Dembski has claimed that he downloaded the video from the Internet, and added a voiceover narration that he deemed appropriate for his audience. According to Dembski, the downloaded version omitted the opening credits but contained the closing credits, which were shown to the audience. However, Smith later documented several instances where images from the Harvard/XVIVO animation were apparently removed from his book The Design of Life but the related footnotes and references were not. indicating that Dembski was already aware that permission had been denied for him to use the animation when he delivered his presentation at the University of Oklahoma.

I see. Desperate are we ?

 

[prodigalson2011]

Tonrey,
Relax pops, The game store was a joke, and I see your paranoia is still showing.

As for : Dembski, he makes the fundamental error that all creationists make. Evolution is not “accident”. That fundamental error is in all anti-evolutionist nonsense.

I just proved that I could come up with a FAR greater number of events, than he has. 10^150 is not even a googleplex. With even a few hundred people throwi

ng the dice, the number would be 100^200. So however he cooked that number up, it’s 100% wrong. He’s no mathematician. He’s a theologian.

Actually there is an error, in my post, but since you are all so ignorant of real science, I thought I’d see if anyone got it. The example of tossing for 13.7 billion years is wrong. It should have been 4 billion years, (cooled earth with oceans). Oh well, it just proves you guys are mental masturbating over here, and have not a clue what you’re talking about.

Every Genetecist and most Biologists knows The Theory of Evolution does not involve “accident” or “chance”. There is no such thing. It’s "probabilities’’, which are computable. Maybe if he stops conflating chance with probability, as every scientist would know, someone might pay attention.

I didn’t “appeal” to Szostak’ authority. I said watch the video. You might just learn something. Of course, if you’re going to go “lalalalalala”, that’s never going to happen.

And BTW, you know what you can do with you patronizing “petitio principii.”. You don’t intimidate me pops. It’s 2012. We speak English now. You are a world class expert at deflection though, I must say.

Also I did read the Feser book, and his other cronies. Maybe if he tried to get a job at a decent school someone would pay attention. he assumes bad-faith, and is so utterly condescending, he makes one want to vomit. I’m working on a refutation. Look on line. He’s a piece of cake to refute. Talk about circular.
Well, Tata folks.

Dembski holds a masters in both mathematics and statistics and a PhD. in mathematics. I’m pretty sure that makes him a mathematician. What are your credentials?

 

[tonyrey]

Tonrey,
Relax pops, The game store was a joke, and I see your paranoia is still showing.

As for : Dembski, he makes the fundamental error that all creationists make. Evolution is not “accident”. That fundamental error is in all anti-evolutionist nonsense.

I just proved that I could come up with a FAR greater number of events, than he has. 10^150 is not even a googleplex. With even a few hundred people throwing the dice, the number would be 100^200. So however he cooked that number up, it’s 100% wrong. He’s no mathematician. He’s a theologian.

Actually there is an error, in my post, but since you are all so ignorant of real science, I thought I’d see if anyone got it. The example of tossing for 13.7 billion years is wrong. It should have been 4 billion years, (cooled earth with oceans). Oh well, it just proves you guys are mental masturbating over here, and have not a clue what you’re talking about.

Every Genetecist and most Biologists knows The Theory of Evolution does not involve “accident” or “chance”. There is no such thing. It’s "probabilities’’, which are computable. Maybe if he stops conflating chance with probability, as every scientist would know, someone might pay attention.

I didn’t “appeal” to Szostak’ authority. I said watch the video. You might just learn something. Of course, if you’re going to go “lalalalalala”, that’s never going to happen.

And BTW, you know what you can do with you patronizing “petitio principii.”. You don’t intimidate me pops. It’s 2012. We speak English now. You are a world class expert at deflection though, I must say.

Also I did read the Feser book, and his other cronies. Maybe if he tried to get a job at a decent school someone would pay attention. he assumes bad-faith, and is so utterly condescending, he makes one want to vomit. I’m working on a refutation. Look on line. He’s a piece of cake to refute. Talk about circular.
Well, Tata folks.

You’re on the wrong forum…

Try atheistforums.com/

 

[Bradski]

Dembski holds a masters in both mathematics and statistics and a PhD. in mathematics. I’m pretty sure that makes him a mathematician. What are your credentials?

I don’t think anyone would class Demski as unintelligent. Well, they shouldn’t. He’s a smart man.

 

[Jason_Firestone]

I see no one can refute anything.

Oh well.

So now all of a sudden credentials ARE important. Virtually EVERY credentialed biologist in the world believes in Evolution, and 85 % of the National Academy of Science, the people who understand it the most, think Evolution reflects reality, and ID is hogwash. THAT is “overwhelming” evidence alone for ID to be false.

No wonder this board is so pathetic. No one knows a thing about what they are even talking about.

And thanks for the false accusation, you Christian you. Most Christian believers believe in Evolution, including Father Coyne, who, until the Right Wing took over your church, ran the Vatican Observatory. So is HE an atheist ?

Why do I keep getting referred to other people and authors. Can’t anyone actually think for them self over here ?

There’s something screwy here, as Dembski is SO off, and so easily refuted. Maybe someone should check and see of all those degrees he says he has, are actually real.

scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/06/28/dishonest-dembskithe-universal-1/

He also assumes that a particle is only in one state. That proves he actually knows nothing about the fundamental laws of Physics, as that number is actually infinite.
So much for Dembski.

Ya know, you people makes yourselves look REALLY bad, when you associate yourselves with such charlatans. It makes ya wonder what else is rotten.

Next.

 

[tonyrey]

“Reasoning is useless because faith is a gift from God.” This implies that nothing has any effect on what we believe. Yet we exist in order to choose what to believe and how to live. One fundamental principle of all religions is the distinction between good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust. We are not predestined to be saints or sinners. Our eternal destiny is not beyond our control. The “chosen ones” are chosen because by loving God and loving all His creatures they prove they wish to be chosen.

Nothing we do can merit an eternity of joy but God always gives us far more than we deserve. Life itself is a free gift. It wasn’t necessary to create us. In fact by creating us God has made Himself vulnerable - as Jesus demonstrated beyond all doubt. The Father suffers as a result of all the unnecessary suffering caused by His children. That is why Jesus came: to appeal to our intellect as well as our conscience. He pointed to the beauty of the lilies as unmistakable evidence of God’s power and love. He certainly did not expect people to believe without giving reasons for the truth of His teaching.

“Which of you can accuse me of sin?” is not a request for blind faith but a logical challenge based on verifiable fact. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is a direct challenge to the intellect as well as the conscience based on the truth that we are all sinners. Christ’s teaching is eminently reasonable even by worldly standards - until it comes to the folly of the Cross. Then divine love transcends human wisdom in its perfection and total unselfishness.

“Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” reveals the humility of Jesus. He didn’t say “Be perfect as I am perfect” because He didn’t wish to differentiate Himself from us. Yet He is morally perfect in spite of being tempted while on earth. By becoming human He made Himself vulnerable in every respect . We don’t need faith to understand the implications of self-sacrifice or to recognise the nobility of men and women who willingly suffer and die for others without expecting to gain anything in return.

Their heroism is based on love not hatred. They do not harm or kill others to achieve their goal. Their sacrifices are reasonable in the view of anyone but an egoist. It is when reason is abandoned that evil possesses a person. Faith alone leads to fanaticism and wanton destruction…

 

[Peter_Plato]

So now all of a sudden credentials ARE important. Virtually EVERY credentialed biologist in the world believes in Evolution, and 85 % of the National Academy of Science, the people who understand it the most, think Evolution reflects reality, and ID is hogwash. THAT is “overwhelming” evidence alone for ID to be false.

If that were true then science would make absolutely no progress because new discoveries and advances are not held by anyone until they become widely accepted and then lose traction when further advances show current knowledge to be limited or unacceptable. If scientists merely accept current understanding as the final word what is left for them to do?

Evolution is such an ambiguous term that at some level (change over time) it is nonsense to deny it. However, that does not entail that every possible meaning or application of the word is indeed accepted or plausible. The problem is lack of clarity and precision.

By the way, “genetecist” is spelled geneticist.

You come across as too emotionally fragile and too vested in your opinion, to add much clarity to this debate.